The Place For My Writers Notes

original posting: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 18:00:05 JST

I, and others, have been using the word "stereotype" fairly freely recently. However, I have noticed that some of the uses aren't quite in synch with the way I use it. Therefore...

Debating 101 says always define your terms before starting, so I looked at some dictionaries.

[Webster's New World] a fixed or conventional expression, notion, mental pattern, etc.

[OAD] an idea or character etc. that is standardized in a conventional form without individuality

Interesting - one dictionary simply says conventional, while the OAD adds the notion that the stereotype "lacks individuality."

I tend to think of a stereotype as a typical person, someone you may be able to classify or categorize easily. Someone who fits (largely) in the middle on whatever scales you are using. I.e., a member of the majority, rather than one of the statistical outlyers. An identifiable "type"?

This does not mean they are necessarily a "flat" character, merely that their peculiarities are ordinary ones which may be seen in many other people.

I suppose one way to put it is that these are the people who (mostly) are the way we expect them to be and do what we might expect merely from a superficial description. The person who works to support a family (instead of having a secret laboratory, neurotic compulsion to power, or whatever). The president of a company who is doing a good job without crushing everyone in sight, embezzling funds, etc. The child who is well-adjusted.

So I go along with the idea of stereotype as conventional. That does not (to me) seem to imply they lack individuality. A conventional person - a "Father Knows Best" type, for example - can be absurdly individual and out of place in today's world. It seems to me that one of the major plotting "themes" available today is that of the conventional person faced with the uncertainty, confusion, and outright unconventional world around them.

Other people seem to consider a "stereotype" as a "flat" character, or perhaps an "Everyman" abstraction that lacks definition. An identifiable mask for the author to cloak some idea in to let it stalk around?

I don't think of stereotypes as lacking individuality. They are identifiably unique and interesting, even though they are just ordinary people who might be met anywhere.

To "break the stereotype" simply because it is expected or conventional ignores the fact that the stereotype may have grown out of very real social, economic, etc. circumstances, and there are usually many people who fit it altogether too well. Each an individual, but largely predictable. That's why people use "stereotypes" - they identify useful patterns of behavior in a simple way, allowing them to deal with people mostly in terms of the "type" instead of having to worry about unpredictable reactions.

Interestingly, Analog (Oct. 1993) has an editorial about "Nouveaux Cliches" in which Stanley Schmidt challenges writers to three points:

1. Don't confuse weak characters with strong characterization
2. Remember that human beings are not the center of the universe, or even the only interesting thing in it.
3. Dare to be fun!

His major point about characters is that some people ARE happily married, some people can manage their own lives, some people ARE the majority, yet the "cliche" of current writing is that no one has virtues, everyone is a psychological disaster area, no one can manage their own lives, marriages are all falling apart, ad nauseum.

(or as I would say, some people are stereotypes - ordinary people.)

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems possible to me to portray an ordinary person AS an ordinary person and still make them interesting. Frankly, I don't enjoy all the broken and fringe people that seem to populate current literature - they don't act like people I know, they aren't familiar, and their "solutions" seem to be surrenders.

Joe B. mentioned

- probably somewhere in the middle. I think this way of
- thinking probably helps prevent overreliance on stereotypes
- by acknowledging that people often appear "contradictory"
- merely because we tend not to accept their complexity, their
- changeability, and , like Whitman, contain, if not multitudes,
- at least small crowds. Thanks!

Joe - does this mean you see stereotypes as "flat" characters, one-dimensional characters?

Anyone - when you say "stereotype", what do you mean? How does this relate to the characters we use in writing?

Can you portray someone doing exactly what is expected - and still have an interesting, strong character?

[I haven't even touched on my thoughts about plot and setting, but they are parallel. Incidentally, anyone want to discuss the inherent stereotyping and generalization of language, of words themselves? I mean, how do you communicate if you don't share concepts?]

Any responses, comments, or thoughts gratefully read.

Apologies for accidentally bringing up a writing topic. Flog me. (no, not you, TJ.)